In my presentation in Dallas I had suggested adding RTP (and even HTTP) because
as both Mirja and Christian mention some 'applications' are requesting
functionalities that are got given elsewhere.
Marie-José Montpetit
ma...@mjmontpetit.com
mari...@mit.edu
On Jun 3, 2015, at 20:44, Christian Hui
nono. read the charter. it says that we’ll:
"1) Define a set of Transport Services, identifying the
services provided by existing IETF protocols and congestion
control mechanisms. As a starting point, the working group will
consider services used
between two endpoints.”
This is bottom-up, and
I think that speaking specifically about any protocol in this document will
not be in the sens of an "abstract" interface for the Transport layer,
because abstraction means that application will no longer be aware of who
or what Transport services are really offered. But in the same time, this
abst
Okay, I promised I won't insist, and I don't... still contributing to the tech
debate here:
In line - essentially, I'm suggesting RTP-over-TAPS here. BTW and just to be
clear, I agree about mentioning RTP in the draft and I agree that it provides
important functions! The question is whether RTP
> Actually I think I don't agree here. Yes, it's tied closer to the application
> but I
> think for taps this is a (good) example where the interface is at a much
> higher
> level and therefore might have a value to discuss it. However... (see below)
I don't quite agree either.
RTP is an extrem
i'm fine with all that...
Sent from my iPhone
> On 3. juni 2015, at 17:58, Mirja Kühlewind
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>> On 03.06.2015 17:04, Brian Trammell wrote:
>>
On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but o
Hi all,
On 03.06.2015 17:04, Brian Trammell wrote:
On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the d
+1
Don't ignore, but dont actively work on...
On 3 Jun 2015 11:04, "Brian Trammell" wrote:
>
> > On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
> >> arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards r
> On 03 Jun 2015, at 16:48, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
>> arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
>> draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I
>> un
> Hi,
>
> I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two
> arguments that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
> draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I
> understand that it's a non-obvious question whether RTP should be
> c
Hi,
I know this has been discussed before, but only briefly. I have two arguments
that I'd like to bring forward towards removing RTP (/RTCP) from
draft-ietf-taps-transports-04 and the documents that will follow it. I
understand that it's a non-obvious question whether RTP should be considered
11 matches
Mail list logo
